Synecdoche, New York laughs at the idea of [its] viewer only watching it twice. In reality, upon a second viewing, everyone will most likely be left with even more questions than they had before. The film packs in so many characters, subplots, life events, and idiosyncratic details, it requires total, rapt attention and more.
2. "10 Movies You Need To Watch Twice To Understand/Sometimes movies can leave viewers more confused than satisfied. Here's our list of movies that deserve (or demand) to be seen more than once" by Andy Crump (a 2015 piece, also in Screen Rant). This focuses on movies with a complicated story that becomes much clearer after you know some particular thing — e.g., "Twelve Monkeys," "Memento," "Fight Club."
We all enjoy linear movies, but every now and again we’re taken off guard by a completely ambiguous, inscrutable flick... dense, cerebral films demand our attention and challenge our intellect...
3. "Top 20 Movies That You Have to Watch Twice to Understand" (Mojo). At #2 is “2001: A Space Odyssey” (1968):
Nowadays, when you watch a film that leaves you puzzled, the internet is there to help. But can you imagine watching “2001: A Space Odyssey” back in 1968?
Not only can I imagine it. I can remember it. I can even remember verbatim what my companion said to me when it ended: "What the hell was that?"
4. Here's a Quora discussion from who knows when: "What movie have you watched twice or thrice - or more to fully get the concept/fully/partial understanding?"
5. "What movies do you have to watch twice to understand?" — a Reddit discussion from 7 years ago. This discussion more closely tracks what I am thinking about. Some top comments:
- Coen Brothers movies are better the second time, you don't have to focus on the plot as much, and instead focus on the characters. Most Coen Brothers movies are character driven, not plot driven...
- I always tell my friends that The Big Lebowski makes sense the first time, but it isn't funny until the second....
- Wes Anderson movies and surprisingly Alexander Payne movies are like this for me too.
Yes, it was a Wes Anderson movie — "The French Dispatch" — that got me thinking about this question. Part of "understanding" it is seeing all the things within the frame and catching all the dialogue. I could not do both things simultaneously. On second watch, I heard a lot of dialogue (and read a lot of subtitles) that I'd completely missed because I was choosing — unconsciously — to look at the pictures. You know, Hollywood people are always calling movies "pictures." Nobody calls movies "dialogue."
पोस्ट्स
१२६ टिप्पण्या:
"Last Year at Marienbad"
Most Kubrick Coen and Tarantino movies. Just rewatched the Sopranos... Holds up well
The Sixth Sense is so much more fun to see a second time. You see so many clever little clues that you missed the first. The anniversary scene in the restaurant just by itself is is worth it. A brilliant scene.
Brazil (1985)
I am not going to read the various lists, but the ones mentioned in the blog post are movies that I watched a second time in part to understand better, or to better see how the various plot elements connected together. Just to give an example- "Fight Club". I didn't figure out that the main character had a psychotic break and was both characters until he beat himself up in the office with his boss, so I watched the movie a second time to see all the clues to this that I missed up that point. Same thing with "The Sixth Sense"- I didn't figure out Willis' character was dead until the restaurant scene with his wife.
Tarantino's movies also do well on a second watch due to the various unnormal temporal shifts he uses.
The Year of Living Dangerously not only benefits from repeated reviewing, each reviewing will change what you think of the ending. Why is Billy Kwan smiling? Fun fact-Linda Hunt won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress for playing Kwan, the only time that's happened, IIRC. It's my all-time favorite movie. It made such an impression on me that a few years later I worked my way to the Pacific Rim to also be a foreign correspondent.
Cjf
12 Monkeys is the last film I watched when, after it was over, I immediately rewatched it.
And none of the writers who included it on their list noted that the flashbacks to the airport shooting that Cole (Bruce Willis' character) was having did in fact change in a very significant way. Makes me wonder if they actually watched the movie or just got input from other lists.
Heartily agree with Memento and Coen Brothers movies but would add to movies with the same “a ha” moment at the end, which required me to go back and watch to see if that character really was dead the whole time and did the movie stay true to the character: High Plains Drifter and that Bruce Willis flick with “I see dead people” is the tagline.
British mysteries continue a mystery to me after multiple watchings. They have multi-generational themes involving things such as incest with twists that unravel only slowly.
I did that with Sixth Sense.
Totally ruined the ending.
I hate it when i agree with Howard, but Pulp Fiction has Got to be pretty far up the list, it took me Several times to piece it together.
As Far as The Big Lebowski, i watched it with my sister (her 1st time ever), and was Surprised that she laughed at anything. Needless to say, the things She laughed at, i didn't even think about. The Big Lebowski is a movie that gets better EVERY TIME you watch it. I think i'm up to only about 12 complete viewings so far (because i can't handle that much laughter).
I've seen Pride and Prejudice about a hundred times (many, many versions), but that's not to understand it; it's because i feel guilty for watching Sense and Sensibility so much more often.
I would say that any Charlie Kaufmann film, not just Synecdoche, NY, needs to be viewed more than once to get all that is going on in it. The problem is that his stories are not for everybody. (Adaption, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, etc.)
Also- I think Robert Altman films needs multiple views. They are typically rich in both the shot and the personalities. A lot of small things going on around the story. Think: McCabe and Mrs. Miller, Nashville, Short Cuts.
The issue of missing some dialogue is certainly part of Altman movies, where people talk over each other. Fawlty Towers has this problem I think because of the tech of the time, and Basil is trying to say what he wants to say without pissing off his wife. I made a point of watching the first Blade Runner several times, years ago. It still suggests to me it is on the verge of something great; I don't even mind the voice-over. Groundhog Day--I've even googled the bit of French poetry--although re-watching that movie is of course like embarking on your own personal Groundhog Day. Speaking of Bill Murray: Scrooged; so much of it is just flat-out funny. I don't consider myself a huge John Hughes fan, but I would certainly mention Ferris Bueller, and at least snippets of the first Home Alone: big step-brother to little step-brother: "I wouldn't let you sleep in my room if you were growing on my ass." That's the Christmas spirit. And then Catherine O'Hara and John Candy in the back of a truck. He is being very generous in giving her a ride, although this is hard to believe. He tries to suggest who he is by mentioning the polka band that is very much with him, and some of their hits. Her reaction is perfect; these two worked together for a number of years.
Carol Kane helps make Scrooged; and I would say re-watch anything with her in it: Addams Family Values; Princess Bride. Not Carol Kane, but other crazy females: Young Frankenstein, which unfortunately I have practically memorized.
The time travel movie Primer has to watched multiple times to understand the time strings.
Update: The Sixth Sense is the one where little Haley Osment sees dead people.
I chuckled a lot when I first saw “Groundhog Day” on its initial release and thought nothing more of it for years. Then I saw it on pay cable and realized that the comedy made it easy to overlook its insights on existence, knowledge, virtue, love, and mortality. Unlike some of the other movies, I had no desire to watch it again because I thought I “got it” the first time.
Memento.
I immediately thought of "Fight Club," only to see it mentioned above.
"Nashville" required at least two viewings before I realized that in nearly every scene featuring one of the stories, the background had at least one of the other characters/stories going on in it. The degree of complexity in that film's structure, when the first viewing pretty much presents itself as a cacaphonous, somewhat pointless melee, is really quite an accomplishment.
A lot of those links list Mulholland Drive. I'm a David Lynch fan and I've probably watched it 15 times. I love the movie for its atmosphere and surrealistic waking nightmare. But unless Lynch himself ever explains it,it's impossible to fully comprehend.
I disagree with the inclusion of twist-ending movies. Subsequent viewings of Fight Club don't make you understand the movie better, because you already know the twist. It's a completely different experience--you're just looking for clues that you think you missed the first time.
The Shining.
There's a great interpretive philosopher named Rob Ager who runs a website called collativelearning.com. He does super deep dives - especially on Kubrick films - that are truly eye opening.
The dive he did on The Shining interpreted the episode at the Overlook Hotel as a malevolent haunting by the angered spirits of dead native Americans infuriated at the repeated subconscious aggression towards their cultural spirits by the occupants and the caretakers.
Once I saw his analysis I had to watch it again, and it hits you in the face like a sledgehammer.
I saw and enjoyed SYNECDOCHE at the theater when first released, but it certainly left me wondering about what I'd seen. I bought the DVD, but I've never even cracked open the cellophane covering it. I think it's time now I do so.
I saw 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY on its original reservations-only tour of the states, when it was shown in Cinerama. I was in 8th grade, and my father, a science fiction fan, reserved seats for the family. We were all baffled by it. (I imagine my mother, not a fan of SF, was probably miserable throughout the film.) I read the Arthur C. Clarke novelization soon after and all became clear. On seeing the film a second time after reading the novel, one can see the film story is really very straightforwardly told, but it has none of the normal movie dialogue employed to explain the motives and actions of the story to the viewers. (Clark's two sequels to the original tale--and the film made from the first sequel--are unnecessary and detract from the original story, as most sequels to any story do. I only read the first of the two sequels, and I didn't see the film made from it.)
Good books, even more, seem like new experiences on rereading, and not just because we're reading the dialogue and descriptions of actions with a context we did not have on first reading--knowing how the plot turns out--but because we usually reread books years after our first reading. In the meantime, we have changed simply by experiencing life, so we return to the books as different readers. For example, I've read NOTES FROM UNDERGROUND three times--first in high school, again just after college, and the third time 20-odd years later. Each time, my reaction to the story and my impression/understanding of the Underground Man was entirely different. It's been about 20 years since my last re-reading, so it's time to go underground with him again!)
The Big Sleep
"The Usual Suspects" holds up well to a second viewing, even though you know the plot twist.
If you’re watching a foreign language film with subtitles, your experience is radically different the second time, even if it’s a straightforward heist movie. In some milieus, watching a dubbed version instead of a subtitled one is like wearing an “I’m with Stupid” t-shirt with the arrow pointing up. But if the characters are logorrheic (I’m looking at you, Eric Rohmer), you’ll spend the whole movie with your eyes on the bottom of the screen, reading. Not ideal. There ‘s a movie with Jean-Louis Trintignant, where he’s lying to his mistress. We know he’s lying, she doesn’t. She’s in the foreground in close-up, doing her make-up. He’s in the background, chattering away, and he says something that gives the game away. She just freezes for a half a tick and then continues with her make-up. But we know she knows now.
Unless you were watching the subtitles instead of her face, in which case the remaining 30 minutes of the movie make no sense at all.
I don't think I got anything extra from watching Star Wars or the Wizard of Oz a second time, but they're fun to re-watch periodically. Kids like to hear or reread a good story a second time. Star Wars and Oz put you in that frame of mind. That's their achievement. They appeal to your child like sense of wonder.....I picked up a lot watching The Godfather a few times. The plot has subtle twists and fore shadowings that you don't catch the first time....Downside: the scene where James Caan beats up his bro-in-law with a garbage can is shocking and effective, but when you re-watch it, you can see where the punches and kicks are pulled....I saw French Dispatch. It was okay, but I had no wish to see it a second time. I don't think if you fully understood its intricacies, your life would be substantially improved. To watch a movie a second time, it has to be a distinctly pleasurable viewing the first time.
Yes Howard - Tarantino - especially the Kill Bills. Mesmerizing every time I watch. I see small nuances with each viewing. there is a scene near the end with Carradine, Uma and her daughter in which Carradine is cutting the crust off sandwich bread for the girl and it makes me hold my breath expecting a violent outcome.
Big Lebowski is good as well multiple times- though my wife would argue strongly it's not worth watching once. Of course that's the woman who has watched Outlander and Doonton like 5x's each all the way through so what does she know.
I don't think I got anything extra from watching Star Wars or the Wizard of Oz a second time, but they're fun to re-watch periodically. Kids like to hear or reread a good story a second time. Star Wars and Oz put you in that frame of mind. That's their achievement. They appeal to your child like sense of wonder.....I picked up a lot watching The Godfather a few times. The plot has subtle twists and fore shadowings that you don't catch the first time....Downside: the scene where James Caan beats up his bro-in-law with a garbage can is shocking and effective, but when you re-watch it, you can see where the punches and kicks are pulled....I saw French Dispatch. It was okay, but I had no wish to see it a second time. I don't think if you fully understood its intricacies, your life would be substantially improved. To watch a movie a second time, it has to be a distinctly pleasurable viewing the first time.
Bladerunner.
Howard Hawks' "The Big Sleep" (1946) was the first movie that, even as an adult, I couldn't quite follow. Years later, I learned that the NY Times critic Bosley Crowther had originally reviewed it as "a web of utter bafflement... in which so many cryptic things occur amid so much involved and devious plotting that the mind becomes utterly confused."
Even Raymond Chandler, the author of the detective novel on which the movie was based, when asked who--in the movie--had killed the chauffeur, could only reply "I don't know."
https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20210812-the-big-sleep-the-most-baffling-film-ever-made
The modern film that left me most confused (not in the "this is a mess" sense, but in the feeling that there was a Big Answer concealed just beneath the surface of what I'd just seen) was David Lynch's "Mulholland Drive" (2001). I've never even been able to get completely through the four-hour YouTube explanations have been posted claiming to disentangle Lynch's tale. There's a reason that even a cursory googling of "Mulholland Drive explained" calls up nearly three million results.
Apocalypse Now is the only movie I paid to see more than once (3 times). I would see it again on the big screen.
Howard mentioned, commenting on Brandon's Saudi adventure of a movie that needs to be watched twice. In fact, it should be in weekly rotation on all main channels, shown in schools.
Most people, myself included, see "The China Syndrome" (jack Lemmon, wilfrid Brimley, the Fonda and Douglas kids) as a cartoonist piece of anti-nuclear power propaganda.
On subsequent viewings, it becomes apparent that it is a subtle masterpiece of pro-nuke propaganda.
They pile potential end of the world disaster on top of end of the world disaster for an hour and a half.
IT'S GONNA BLOW!!!
In the final dramatic climax, Emily Littela comes out and says "never mind. Go home to bed folks"
Metaphorically, anyway.
I watched it last year and it holds up well. NOt as intended perhaps. But as a pro-nuke piece.
John LGBTQBNY Henry
L.A. Confidential
I watched 2001 while coming down off my first acid trip.
Didn't really get into the movie. Scifi hadn't been my thing since I was a little girl and wanted my own robot.
I rewatched The Godfather trilogy a couple years ago. I've seen them all a number of times but this may have been the first time I watched all 3 back to back in order.
They're still pretty good. But not epic in the way I used to think about them. Just good 70s/80s mafia flicks.
G3 really surprised me though. I saw it entirely differently than previously. Not better/worse, it just seemed like a completely different movie.
John LGBTQBNY Henry
Run, Lola, Run (German with subtitles)
Get Smart (2008) it's about a competent woman in a man's job who is assigned a mission with an inexperienced natural. First view is gags at the man's expense.
I can add to the list, The Girl in the Fog, an Italian crime drama, with a complicated plot. You can "understand" it if you watch it again, but is it really that believable?
Sometimes the movies are designed not to make sense. Maybe that's true of 2001. About the time everyone was rewatching Memento to understand it, people tried to do the same thing for a David Lynch movie, maybe it was Mullholland Drive, maybe it was Inland Empire, and the upshot was that there was no way the movie made literal sense. Sometimes it's because the filmmaker's vision transcends logic. Sometimes it's just bad plotting.
Even Raymond Chandler, the author of the detective novel on which the movie was based, when asked who--in the movie--had killed the chauffeur, could only reply "I don't know."
I recall reading that the director, Howard Hawks, admitted that he couldn't follow the plot. Better the second time if you give up on the plot and just enjoy the dialogue and characters.
"Chinatown" had a complicated enough story line that it was better the second time. And third. And fourth.
If I have to watch your movie twice to understand it, it's probably not a great movie. Might be a great story, great dialogue, great visuals, but if I am overwhelmed and confused just because the director loves snappy visuals, unique frames, and rapid-patter dialogue then it's a vanity project. The director is making a look-what-I-can-do project, which doesn't necessarily translate into good viewing.
khematite said...
Howard Hawks' "The Big Sleep" (1946) was the first movie that, even as an adult, I couldn't quite follow.
The Majority of things that happen in the film aren't filmed, because of Code.
Did you get that the book shop was renting porno?
Did you get that the daughter was blackmailed into MAKING porno?
Did you get that the pornshop/blackmailer was gay?
Did you get that Carmen Killed Sean Regan? And that they hid in an Oil well sump? (GROSS!)
Finally did you get that the Chauffeur KILLED HIMSELF?
after being hit on the head, after killing the gay guy?
It's All explicit, in the book (except for the last, THAT you have to infer)
Inception too many layers
The Death of Stalin. So much packed into each sequence.
Mulholland Drive. I keep one scene on continuous loop.
The mystery can make the movie. If the question viewers have at the end of "Blade Runner" were resolved, it would be less of a phenomenon. Actually, I saw the movie more than once and that famous question didn't occur to me.
Far more complicated than "Blade Runner" is another Philip K. Dick film "A Scanner Darkly." In TV, "Westworld" gets very complicated. Maybe "The Man in the High Castle" too.
Robert Cook said...(Clark's two sequels to the original tale--and the film made from the first sequel--are unnecessary and detract from the original story, as most sequels to any story do. I only read the first of the two sequels, and I didn't see the film made from it.)
FWIW, I really liked (and still do) 2010 (the movie), although it does have a number of flaws (not to mention seeming really out-dated and schlocky in some parts). I think you can still watch it without it ruining the first one, mainly because it's an entirely different sort of movie.
I still call cheating on Sixth Sense because they never showed the kid's cold breath when he was near Bruce Willis' character, but did whenever any other ghost was around.
I'm not sure I'd get Revolver even after a second viewing, other than understanding the general idea behind it, which I already do. I am sure, though, that I don't want to invest in a second viewing.
I had the same experience as Robert Cook. I enjoyed 2001, I thought I understood it, but then I read the book, finally really got it, then loved the movie upon rewatching. That was my first thought upon reading the post.
I never get tired of rewatching Casablanca. I noticed many new things upon the first rewatching, now it's just having a chat with an old friend.
Movie you can only watch once because the reveal ruins it for a 2nd watch.
The 6th sense
So many on the list are "clever" movies. Are you smart enough to get all the clues the first time? Inception, The Prestige -- basically Nolan. I hate that kind of list.
What about movies where the humor and charm get better? "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels" is one.
The Usual Suspects. The ending is so effective that it's a different movie the second time through. I disagree about the Fight Club ending. Although I loved the movie and have watched it 4 or 5 times, the ending doesn't work. It felt like a last-minute brainstorm that got shoehorned in where it didn't fit. There were too many scenes where he couldn't possibly be the same person.
I recently watched The French Dispatch and, although I admire it as a piece of filmmaking, it took several sittings--30 or 40 minutes at a time was enough. I can't imagine muddling through it again.
Star Wars (the original un "updated version) came to mind first. Context is important to the viewing experience.
Our town had just experienced a tornado that left power out for a couple of days. Going to a nearby town for air conditioning, a hot meal, and entertainment was the choice of many locals. Not Internet in those days to get the backstory. All my sister and I had was original Star Trek episodes at odd TV hours to fill our SciFi interests.
So ANY space movie was going to be our choice. We were just happy to like it. We went back the next night to get a chance to catch what we had missed before. We couldn't go to the next showing because it was already sold out.
The Marriage of Maria Braun, an allegory about the division of Germany after WWII, and what might happen upon reunification. First saw it before the wall came down, a rewatching as east and west were being rejoined was most worthwhile.
The Parent Trap starring Lindsay Lohan. Seriously.
Vertigo
My brother's home movies
Last Year at Marienbad
2001
L'Avventura
Momento
Mulholland Drive
Peter Rabbit.
The Big Sleep (Bogart and Bacall version)
Once Upon a Time in the West
The Searchers
Hamlet (trying to figure out his psychology)
I agree with 2001 and The Tree of Life
Some of the films on the critics' lists had a BIG REVEAL at the end. Well, once you know that, the second watching is an entirely different thing, without the mystery of the first time.
Momento
Or basically any Christopher Nolan movie.
UK TV show "The Singing Detective" got better the 2nd time round.
Some films need to be seen more than once to understand them. But that's doesn't mean they get better on rewatch. I saw Momento a 3rd time years ago and was bored. Once you solve the puzzle...
The Conversation. Make it 3 or 4 times. Blade Runner, definitely. Just to appreciate the texture of the thing. And, Good Lord, think of movies based on books that benefit from multiple readings. If I hadn’t read Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy half a dozen times in my life, then any viewing of the movie would have been lacking a huge amount of context.
And Ozu films. Jeez…
Linda Hunt won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress for playing Kwan, the only time that's happened, IIRC
I think you're right. I think she won her Oscar for playing Kwan only once. I don't think she won another Oscar for playing Kwan.
It wasn't until the fifth time watching The Sound of Music that I realized all the characters are dead, and that the mountains at the end represent Heaven.
I saw "2001" in 1970 when I was 9, so I immediately thought of it when I read your post title. Where was WTF when we needed it?
The Year of Living Dangerously not only benefits from repeated reviewing
I believe that's the only movie I've seen more than once (at least 4 times) in a theater. It was either right before or soon after my mother's terminal cancer diagnosis, and my job sucked, so I needed the diversion and took it. Mel Gibson sure looks rough 40 years later, thanks to cigs and booze. I haven't seen Signourey lately.
rcocean- I would watch L'Aventura 2x's just for Monica Vitti.
Drowning Mona (2000)
The first time I thought it was fine, light, weird, but in a charming way. By the third viewing, I thought it was one of the great movie comedies and didn't get a fraction of the respect it deserved. Then I really watched it. What a great movie. Danny DeVito, Bette Midler, Jamie Lee Curtis, Casey Affleck, a whole cast of killers. Rotten Tomatoes can go pound sand.
"He said, 'ovaries'?
"Oh, yeah, all the time..."
I'm listening to a podcast that calls out the film "Jagged Edge" as only being interesting for one viewing, and after knowing the ending you can never watch it again.
UK TV show "The Singing Detective" got better the 2nd time round.
As I recall, it had no where to go but up, or was that just the first episode?
I'd like to see all of Blade Runner again. I wanted to see his apartment some more and lost interest in the plot. Didn't know it was F L Wright until the sequel came out.
I did see "Liquid Sky" and "A Clockwork Orange" twice, the latter back to back, probably wouldn't have without the Ludwig van. Bad influences on a young man.
Amazing that these characters think that any movie is worth this much of my time.
Sixteen Candles
The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...
...If I hadn’t read Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy half a dozen times in my life, then any viewing of the movie would have been lacking a huge amount of context.
______________________
A great choice, thanks for mentioning it. I read the novel, then watched the movie, then reread the book in order to better understand it, then rewatched the movie to better understand it. The film released in 2011 comes across as too muddled, and isn't nearly long enough to do justice to the book. I hope someday to watch the mini-series from the 1970's, which is generally regarded as a much better adaptation.
Speaking of le Carre, I rate the film adaptation of The Spy Who Came in from the Cold as the best "twist" film of all time, and definitely one that should be watched at least twice.
Movies aren't like books. Any movie that requires a second or more viewing that isn't free to watch is a money grab.
Dead Ringers
Don't Look Now
Hereditary
If I have to watch your movie twice to understand it, it's probably not a great movie
You don't like much film noir, do you?
Ralph L said, "I haven't seen Signourey lately."
She looks and seems amazing. She's in the series finale episode of the excellent French comedy called Call My Agent, looking great, dancing well, and speaking damn fine French.
60+ comments in and no one has mentioned <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-rewatchables/id1268527882>my favorite podcast</a>?
Blogger The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...
If I hadn’t read Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy half a dozen times in my life, then any viewing of the movie would have been lacking a huge amount of context.
I'd been hearing LeCarre's name for 30 years or more but never thought I would enjoy him and never read him. Then saw the movie of Tinker Tailor on a plane 15 years back and got hooked.
But forget the movie version. BBC did a 6 part adaptation in the 70s with Alec Guinesss as George Smiley and a bunch of great supporting actors. I've probably seen it 20 times or more. Compared to this and the book, the movie really, really, sucks. The only good thing about the movie is that it got me to start reading LeCarre which I do over and over.
I just finished rewatching, for the 15-20th time, the 6 part "Smiley's People", also with Alec Guiness as Smiley. Not sure which of the 2 adaptations is the better. Maybe both. Alec Guiness makes a perfect George Smiley.
Both are on YouTube.
I wish they had done "Honorable Schoolboy" too. I just reread that last month for the umpteenth time.
One thing I found really objectionable about the movie of Tinker Tailor was the treatment of Peter Guillam. In the book and BBC series he is completely heterosexual. In the movie, they have him have him as gay with a live-in lover. Why? It does nothing for the plot one way or the other. It seems completely gratuitous.
Ditto Bill Hayden. They make him much more gay in the movie than in the book.
Obligatory NTTATWWT.
John LGBTQBNY Henry
Blade Runner 2049. Better than original and visually more beautiful. Watched it 4 times on HBOmax and am still kicking myself for not seeing it a theater.
M*A*S*H.....because I wanted to hear all the of PA announcements.
"I still call cheating on Sixth Sense because they never showed the kid's cold breath when he was near Bruce Willis' character, but did whenever any other ghost was around."
I haven't see it since it came out--(btw, I am faintly acquainted with the editor of the film...he was a college and then NYC-roommate with one of my close college friends)--but could it be because the film is seen from Bruce Willis' point of view, and he could not see the the cold breath because he did not know he was dead? Just a spitball suggestion.
I watched Star War episode 6, "Return of the Jedi," several times, because it is at some point in the movie where the franchise collapses, never to return. Spare you the details, but it starts with ewoks.
"If I have to watch your movie twice to understand it, it's probably not a great movie"
Or perhaps you don't understand what "understand" means in this context.
Chinatown and Empire of the Sun pack a powerful punch every time you watch them.
Mid-1970s at a family get-together. I'm listening to what the adults are saying and my Uncle Jack says that 2001: ASO made no sense to him. I piped up and told him that you need to read the book. His rejoinder was, "I'm not reading any goddamn book to understand a movie." Fair enough.
I did read the book before I saw the movie and because of that the movie made prefect sense to me.
Mulholland Drive. I keep one scene on continuous loop.
************
I bet I know which one! ;)
Smokin' hot.
I especially like watching a movie for the second time with the Director’s/Actors’ commentary on. I recently rewatched “The Usual Suspects” for the sixth time and then immediately rewatched listening to the director’s take on things. Learned all kinds of stuff about how the cast gelled and how comedian Kevin Pollack made that happen.
“McCabe and Mrs. Miller” is another one that is greatly enhanced by listening to Robert Altman’s description of the choices he made, and also what it was like to direct Warren Beatty who wanted to make numerous takes of each scene he was in
It's one thing to watch a movie a second time in the comfort of one's own home, and quite another to be so mesmerized by a film that it's truly impossible to just get up and walk out when it's over. Nor, at least with me, was it about any failure to comprehend the movie. And in fact, it only happened to me twice--Kurosawa's Yojimbo (1961) and Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove (1964). Not before that and not after. Gobsmacked both times, as the British might say. I did want to see Mulholland Drive a second time, but in 2001 they generally kicked you out between showings of movies, especially in Manhattan theaters.
There are also those movies that are so richly detailed that they get better with repeated viewings: The Third Man, Night of the Hunter, Alien, Chinatown, Unforgiven, and the 17-minute ballet sequence in The Red Shoes.
There are also those movies that are so richly detailed that they get better with repeated viewings, for example The Third Man, Night of the Hunter, Alien, Chinatown, Unforgiven, and the 17-minute ballet sequence in The Red Shoes.
sorry to beat a dying horse, but Raymond Chandler made it pretty clear in the simple art of murder, that he did NOT write "who dun its" and that he thought that "who dun its" were STUPID.
Raymond Chandler wrote about characters, and settings.. 1930's LA, in the rain; is my favorite one of his characters
Kill Bill is a movie that is transformed once you've read this amazing essay.
And this mindblower will completely upend what you think "Dumbo" (yes, Dumbo!) is really about.
"I'm listening to a podcast that calls out the film "Jagged Edge" as only being interesting for one viewing, and after knowing the ending you can never watch it again."
You will lose a lot on the second watching because you are never in doubt who the killer is the second time. In most such movies, the defendant is wrongly accused, and the lawyer brilliantly gets him acquitted against all odds. I liked the movie a great deal, but have never rewatched it.
"His rejoinder was, "I'm not reading any goddamn book to understand a movie." Fair enough."
Uncle Jack was right. If you need to read the book, they should give you free copies at the movie theater along with comfy chair, a reading room, and a nice caccipino.
The Sixth Sense is worth watching again because you know how it ends.
Truly great movies hold up on rewatch. Most get better with age.
I heard 6th Sense had a big twist, figured out in his first scene that Bruce Willis was dead, and kept looking for ANOTHER twist, the big deal that everyone was talking about. It was a letdown to discover it was just what I knew all along.
Reminds me of the time when I was a kid and got to go into a mirror maze and just walked right through it. It made me feel smart but ripped off.
Le Carre's A Perfect Spy miniseries from the late 80's was fantastic. The guy who plays the con man father is perfect.
The best cold war spy series hands down is Sandbaggers which is available free on regular YouTube. Fry and Laurie spoof of Sandbaggers is quite funny as well.
Sigourney Weaver was hanging out in Portwenn for a bit.
@Dagwood,
"I hope someday to watch the mini-series from the 1970's, which is generally regarded as a much better adaptation."
All seven episodes are here. Separate a day, and watch them from beginning to end. Best binge you'll ever experience.
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJ4RACclcSYP3FvZkdxTVx3pSj4Ns8RDz
I haven't seen and/or don't recall about 75% of the titles mentioned, and don't feel tempted to check my likes against the recommendations.
OTOH I have more than once started reading a book and realized at some point well inside that I have read it before. I generally know immediately whether or not I've seen a movie.
8 1/2, and more obscurely and recently, Long Day's Journey Into Night directed by Bi Gan. (Totally unrelated to the Eugene O'Neill play.)
In both cases, I really did not understand how the pieces fit together on first viewing, but I still thoroughly enjoyed the movie. The second time through both, how they fit together was much clearer, and the enjoyment even greater.
And with Long Day's Journey Into Night, repeat viewings reveal additional things from the first part of the movie that get included and changed in the final portion. The final portion makes the movie, whether fully understood or not.
"Mid-1970s at a family get-together. I'm listening to what the adults are saying and my Uncle Jack says that 2001: ASO made no sense to him. I piped up and told him that you need to read the book. His rejoinder was, 'I'm not reading any goddamn book to understand a movie.' Fair enough.
"I did read the book before I saw the movie and because of that the movie made prefect sense to me."
Actually, if you watch 2001 very carefully, being attentive to all dialogue in the film--sparse as it is--it isn't really that difficult to decipher. It's just that we're used to movies being garrulous, where dialogue between characters serves as exposition, explaining what has happened and what it (may) mean. As I said above, 2001 lacks expository dialogue. A second viewing without reading the book will probably make the movie much clearer to many viewers.
I'm not sure I ever saw the Tinker miniseries from beginning to end in order. That's one for which it was criminal for PBS to broadcast them weekly.
Then there was the Rhinemann Exchange miniseries, in which the actors admitted they couldn't follow the plot when they made it.
I thought it was an OK movie the first time I watched ... but Best Picture?
And then I watched it again. And even now I pick up little things each time I watch No Country for Old Men.
Blogger Andrew said...
All seven episodes are here. Separate a day, and watch them from beginning to end. Best binge you'll ever experience.
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJ4RACclcSYP3FvZkdxTVx3pSj4Ns8RDz
For reasons I don't understand, there are 2 versions, a 6 ep and a 7 ep version. The 7 ep has slightly longer, perhaps 10 minutes total, than the 6 but there is nothing important missing in the 6 ep version.
On the old DVD of Fight Club, there's a commentary track with David Fincher, Brad Pitt & Edward Norton, where Pitt and Norton realize, perhaps for the first time, that the scene where they're fighting outside the bar and both characters are clearly being seen by the onlookers (one of whom calls dibs on fighting the winner) makes no sense if you know the twist. "Yeah, guess not," says Fincher.
Blazing Saddles. Over and over and over.
Do I understand it? Probably not. But now there's a frisson of danger in watching anything made by Mel Brooks. So I don't really care.
Thanks for the link, Andrew!
"Movies that you have to watch twice to understand."
One reason to look forward to Alzheimer’s is that you’ll be able to watch your favorite movies over and over and over, and enjoy them just as much as the first time. Understanding is overrated.
Lily @ 2:00
Nice Red Shoes reminder. Walbrook is perfect and Shearer's dance exceptional.
Re: the Big Sleep. Lead writer: William Faulkner. I need to read his novels more than once to figure them out.
As I said above, 2001 lacks expository dialogue.
Yes, that's the problem. We start out with men in badly done ape suits, then we're off in a long space voyage with the Blue Danube. Then its scientists on some sort of station babbling about something. Then its Hal, 3 astronauts and the spaceship. Then its the hero escaping and going through a laserlight show and ending up in some weird situation. Then bang, its back to the apes to close it all out.
Trying to understand who is doing what and why is difficult. Personally, I liked the HAL portion of the story. I could've skipped everything else. 2001 must set a record for fewest words per screen minute.
I watched Annie Hall the other night and it was a different movie. This is a movie being changed by things on the outside - California, so clean and bright; Woody Allen's angst and early wokieness. I've always liked Annie Hall but I quit watching Woody Allen when all the scandals broke out. But then I just couldn't resist one more time round with Annie Hall. And, ecco, a new movie. I wanted to watch it again it was so changed.
The Crying Game worth the re-watch and I think Chinatown one of the 5 best talkies ever made. The Third Man most certainly develops with each watch. It has been eclipsed and panned as overrated but The Rules of the Game is a part of my life.
Lon Cheney senior takes you deeper into many roles as you watch again. The General has many satisfactions.
Make Way for Tomorrow (Leo McCarey)and Point Blank.
>>Drowning Mona (2000)
I haven't seen either in quite a while but my mind gets Drowning Mona mixed up with Cookie's Fortune. Liked both, but maybe Cookie's Fortune a bit more. I remember more about the latter.
--gpm
Until I had kids, I didn’t watch very many movies. Then I decided to share things I had watched when I was younger. Hogan’s Heroes. The Breakfast Club, Good Times!! I know we’re all different- forgive my simple sophistication in taste, please.
I’ve reread books forever because of how they make me feel. Listen to music and watch Netflix series or movies for the same reason. Maybe they give me hope. Maybe they fill a void?
I read The Joyluck Club and loved it. I saw the movie and was prepared to be disappointed.
I loved it. I love The Lakehouse- and The Blindside. And All About Jack. All Sandra Bullock movies and I’ve watched them multiple times.
And Louis L’Amour books. Always.
I see a lot of examples above of movies that have some big, Aristotelian recognition or reversal. I don't think that gets at what you're asking (and if the thing properly does its job in that context there really shouldn't be any lack of understanding at the end of it, at least in my perspective). As far as movies that you actually have to watch twice to understand, I suggest:
Primer (maybe the greatest movie I've ever seen about time travel)
and
Synecdoche, New York (Philip Seymour Hoffman at the height of his powers (in fairness he was at the height of his powers in a lot of what he did))
This is an exceptionally good comment thread.
My personal favorite movie of all time is probably The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp. There is a lot going on in this movie, and multiple viewings do you not exhaust it. It is an Archers film, as is The Red Shoes, which someone mentioned. It is another movie that merits repeated views. I believe Martin Scorsese said it was his favorite movie.
I thought I understood The Fountain after the second viewing, until I watched it the third time.
I slept on it, and another one came to mind:
Minority Report
You know, Hollywood people are always calling movies "pictures." Nobody calls movies "dialogue."
You don't call 'em Talkies?
If you enjoy rewatching 12 MONKEYS, try out Chris Marker’s 1964 short film (~ 30 minutes)LA JETEE, on which 12M is based. It’s on YouTube in its entirety: https://youtu.be/fU99W-ZrIHQ
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा